Quote Originally Posted by sehrgut View Post
This is just me, but I feel that, since photography is a visual medium, the photograph isn't communicating effectively if it needs the title, background info paragraph listed in the gallery catalogue, or the little bit of haiku decoupaged over the edge. The moment text becomes necessary, it's a (however-short) essay, illustrated with a photograph.

Not that photographically-illustrated essays are a bad thing, but "the work" at that point is not a photograph, it's a multi-component piece of which the photograph is one part.
So in your view, no photograph should have a title, because even "tree in a brook" tells you something about the image from the photographers mind, while without the title, someone might intemperate that as 'brook with a tree in it'. Therefore any image with a small title tag has lost some of it's power?